S. Rept. 108-200 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA108th Congress (2003-2004)

Committee Report

Report text available as:

Calendar No. 399
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-200
_______________________________________________________________________
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1561
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
November 18, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel
Theresa Prych, Professional Staff, Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Cynthia Gooen Lesser, Minority Counsel
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel,
Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of
Columbia Subcommittee
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 399
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-200
======================================================================
TO PRESERVE EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
_______
November 18, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1561]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 1561) to preserve existing judgeships on the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, having considered
the same reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
I. Purpose and Summary........................................... 1
II. Background.................................................... 1
III. Legislative History........................................... 4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis................................... 5
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation................................. 5
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact............................... 5
VII. Changes in Existing Law....................................... 5
I. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of S. 1561 is to preserve existing judgeships
on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
II. Background
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL COURT SYSTEM
The local District of Columbia Courts consist of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Courts
constitute the Judicial Branch of the District of Columbia and
they are separate and distinct from the legislative and
executive branches of the District of Columbia.\1\ The District
of Columbia court system is overseen by Congress and funded by
the federal government.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See D.C. Code section 1-204.31 (2003); 2002 Annual Report of
the District of Columbia Courts, p. 11.
\2\ For a history of the District of Columbia court system, see
Senate Report No. 107-108, Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges on both the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
and the Superior Court are selected through a process that
includes the involvement of both local and federal entities.
When a vacancy occurs on the Court, notice is sent to the
District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, a
District of Columbia agency composed of seven members.\3\ The
Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants for the
vacancy, conducts an investigation and review of each applicant
and selects three possible candidates to fill the vacancy. The
names of those three candidates are sent to the President, who
then selects one of them to nominate to fill the vacancy on the
Court. Once the nomination is made, it is sent to the Senate
for confirmation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See D.C. Code section 1-204.34 (2003) (One member is appointed
by the President, two members are appointed by the Board of Governors
of the unified District of Columbia Bar, two members are appointed by
the Mayor, one member is appointed by the D.C. Council, one member is
appointed by the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.)
\4\ D.C. Code section 1-204.33 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is the local
trial court of general jurisdiction in the District of
Columbia.\5\ It consists of six divisions including civil,
criminal, probate, social services, and the Family Court. The
last major reform of the District of Columbia Courts occurred
in 2002. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001.\6\ The purpose
of that Act was to restructure the then-family division of the
Superior Court into a new Family Court. The Act was intended to
promote the efficiency and consistency in the assignment of
judges to the Family Court, improve the handling of cases
involving families and neglected children, and help recruit and
retain experienced judges to serve in the Family Court.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ D.C. Code section 1-204.31 (2003).
\6\ Public Law No. 107-114.
\7\ See Senate Report No. 107-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 11-903 of the District of Columbia Code establishes
an overall limit on the number of judges that may be seated on
the Superior Court. The current limit is 58 in addition to a
chief judge. Section 3(a) of the Family Court Act, among other
things, allows the limit to be exceeded to appoint additional
Family judges if the number of judges in the Family Court is
less than 15 and if certain other conditions are met.\8\
Section 3(b) of the Act required the Court to complete a
transition plan and submit it to Congress within 90 days of
enactment. Section 3(c) of the Act required that the transition
plan include an analysis of the number of judges then sitting
in the Family Court. In addition, section 3(c) required that,
should the number of judges in the Family Court be less than
15, then a corresponding number of vacancies would be created
on the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These other requirements include: (1) there are no other judges
already on the Court who are willing to volunteer for a transfer into
the Family Court from another division, (2) the chief judge obtains
permission from the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration within
the Court, and (3) the chief judge reports to Congress on the need to
exceed the cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2002, the chief judge submitted to Congress the
required transition plan. The plan determined that the number
of judges qualified and willing to serve in the Family Court
was 12 and, therefore, pursuant to the Family Court Act, three
new vacancies were created on the Family Court, notwithstanding
the overall limit to the number of judges on the Superior Court
in section 11-903 of the District of Columbia Code.\9\ As a
result, the nomination process was triggered and on January 21,
2003 the President nominated Judith Nan Macaluso, Jerry Stewart
Byrd, and Joseph Michael Ryan III to fill the three newly
created Family Court seats. Those nominations were referred to
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, as the committee of
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia Courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ District of Columbia Family Court Transition Plan, April 5,
2002, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Prior to the nominations of the three Family Court
nominees, the Committee had also received the nomination of
Fern Flanagan Saddler. As with most DC Court nominations, she
was nominated to fill a vacancy created by a retired judge,
Judge Patricia Wynn, and was not designated for a particular
division. Later in the year, the Committee received the
nominations of Brian F. Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe to be
Superior Court judges to fill vacancies created by retired
judges Mary Ellen Abrecht and Frederick D. Dorsey,
respectively. On June 26, the Committee favorably reported the
nominations of Fern Saddler and Judith Nan Macaluso to the full
Senate and on June 27, both were confirmed.
Subsequently, the Committee learned that with the
confirmation of Judges Macaluso and Saddler, the Court only had
two open seats due to the overall limit on the number of
judges; however, there were four nominations still pending in
the Committee. If all four of those nominations had involved
judges not specifically designated to serve on the Family
Court, the limit on the number of judges in section 11-903
would have permitted only two of the four nominated individuals
to serve on the Court, even if the Senate confirmed all four.
While the Family Court Act resulted in creating three new seats
on the Court, that Act failed to account for the new seats in
the overall limit outlined in section 11-903. In addition,
while the four nominations were still pending in Committee, on
September 25, the Committee received the additional nomination
of Gregory E. Jackson to fill the seat of retired judge Mildred
M. Edwards.
In response to this problem, Chairman Collins, along with
Senators Voinovich and Durbin, Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, introduced S.
1561 to amend section 11-903 to reflect the addition of the
three newly created seats on the Court pursuant to the Family
Court Act. In addition, the Committee determined that it would
move forward with the nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan III,
Jerry Stewart Byrd, Brian F. Holeman, and Craig S. Iscoe. The
Family Court Act provides an exception to section 11-903 to
allow Family Court judges to be seated notwithstanding the
limit. Therefore, the Committee determined that if Brian F.
Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe were confirmed prior to the
confirmations of Joseph Michael Ryan III and Jerry Stewart
Byrd, the Family Court nominees, all four could be seated as
judges, notwithstanding the fact that there were only two
vacancies on the Court. Once the Holeman and Iscoe nominations
were confirmed, there were no more seats remaining on the
Court; however, because of the exception in the Family Court
Act, the Court could exceed the section 11-903 limit to seat
the two Family Court judges.
On October 22, 2003, the Committee favorably reported the
four nominations to the full Senate and on October 24, the
Senate confirmed first the nominations of Brian F. Holeman and
Craig S. Iscoe and then, on the same day, confirmed the
nominations of Joseph Michael Ryan III and Jerry Stewart Byrd.
However, Gregory E. Jackson, the most recent nominee received
by the Committee, will not be able to be seated as judge even
if he is confirmed.
In addition, notwithstanding the confirmation of Brian F.
Holeman and Craig S. Iscoe, should section 11-903 not be
amended, the result may be a permanent decrease in the number
of judges serving in the non-Family Court divisions of the
Superior Court, including civil and criminal, as other judges
decide to retire. In 2002, the civil division had nearly 98,000
cases available for disposition and the criminal division had
50,000, compared to 38,000 in the Family Court.\10\ Based upon
the caseload statistics in the Court's 2002 Annual Report, the
loss of three seats in the other divisions of the Superior
Court would result in an average increase of the caseload by
nearly 7% per judge. This is particularly troubling because the
District of Columbia Superior Court's caseload tends to be
among the highest in the Nation. For example, in the period
from 1999 through 2001, D.C. had nearly 6,700 felony case
filings per 100,000 population, the highest in the country.\11\
In 2001, the District had the highest number of civil filings
per 100,000 of the population\12\ and only five states exceeded
the District in the number of filings per judge.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 2002 Annual Report of the District of Columbia Courts.
\11\ Examining the Work of State Courts, 2002: A National
Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, p. 65.
\12\ Examining the Work of State Courts at 18.
\13\ Examining the Work of State Courts at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of three seats in the non-Family Court divisions
of the Superior Court could have a detrimental effect on the
administration of justice in the District by adding to the
already high caseload level of the judges. S. 1561 would
address that concern by increasing the limit on the number of
judges from 59 to 62.
III. Legislative History
S. 1561 was introduced on August 1, 2003 by Senators
Collins, Voinovich, and Durbin and was referred to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs and then referred to the
Subcommittee on Government Management, the Workforce, and the
District of Columbia. The bill was polled out of subcommittee
on October 15, 2003. On October 22, 2003, the Committee
considered S. 1561 and ordered the bill reported by voice vote.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 amends section 11-903 of the District of Columbia
Code to increase the limit on the number of judges on the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia by three.
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation
S. 1561--A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
S. 1561 would amend the District of Columbia Code to
increase the number of associate judges on the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia from 58 to 61. Under current law,
the Superior Court is subject to a cap of 58 judgeships. Based
on information from the Superior Court, CBO estimates that
increasing the cap on judgeships to 61 would cost about $1
million a year for salaries and benefits of additional judges
and support staff, subject to appropriation of the necessary
amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 1561 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains
no other regulatory impact.
VII. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic and existing law, in which no
change is proposed, is shown in roman):
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE
TITLE 11, ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
CHAPTER 9. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sec. 11-903. Composition
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall
consist of a chief judge and [fifty-eight] 61 associate judges.